Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 38 (JHR)

Dinesh Jalan v. State of Jharkhand

2024-01-08

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2024
JUDGMENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI In both the petitions, commons question of facts and laws are involved and that is why, both the petitions have been heard together with consent of the parties. 2. Heard Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 3. Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 at the outset submits that during the pendency of these petitions, opposite party no.2 has left for his heavenly abode and in both the cases, the complainant is same. 4. In Cr.M.P. No.617 of 2018, the prayer is made for quashing the order dated 14.09.2017 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pakur in Criminal Revision No.24 of 2016, whereby, he has been pleased to confirm the order dated 27.08.2016 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Pakur in P.C.R. Case No.64 of 2006. The prayer is also made for quashing the order dated 27.08.2016 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Pakur in P.C.R. Case No.64 of 2006. 5. P.C.R. Case No.64 of 2006 was filed alleging therein that the complainant and the accused/petitioner on behalf of the company, namely, K.J. Mining Ltd. had entered upon an indenture of sale/transfer with the complainant for purchasing the assets of M/s Talreza Stone works at the total cost of Rs.15 Lakhs only and some extra parts were also purchased additionally at a total cost of Rs.3 Lakhs only on 20.05.2003. It was further alleged by the complainant that sale of spare parts was not mentioned in the indenture of sale/transfer deed as it was the personal assets of the complainant and not to M/s Talreza Stone Works. The accused person therefore granted post dated cheques dated 01.11.2005 and 03.01.2006 amounting to Rs.1,25,000/-and Rs.25,000/-respectively over Indian Overseas Bank, Kolkata. The said cheque was delivered to the complainant at Pakur and it was deposited at SBI Bazar Branch, Pakur on 17.01.2006 and the same was sent to Indian Overseas Bank, Kolkata for collection of the cheque amount, but the cheque was bounced. Thereafter on 15.02.2006, notice was sent according to N.I. Act, but in spite of that, the payment was not made and, therefore, the complaint case was filed against the petitioner. 6. Thereafter on 15.02.2006, notice was sent according to N.I. Act, but in spite of that, the payment was not made and, therefore, the complaint case was filed against the petitioner. 6. In Cr.M.P. No.620 of 2018, the prayer is made for quashing the order dated 13.09.2017 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-1, Pakur in Criminal Revision No.23 of 2016, whereby, he has been pleased to confirm the order dated 27.08.2016 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Pakur in P.C.R. Case No.278 of 2005. The prayer is also made for quashing the order dated 27.08.2016 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Pakur in P.C.R. Case No.278 of 2005. 7. P.C.R. Case No.278 of 2005 was filed alleging therein that the complainant and the accused/petitioner on behalf of the company, namely, K.J. Mining Ltd. and Minerals (P) Ltd. had entered upon an indenture of sale/transfer with the complainant for purchasing the assets of M/s Talreza Stone works at the total cost of Rs.15 Lakhs only and some extra parts were also purchased additionally at a total cost of Rs.3 Lakhs only on 20.05.2003. It was further alleged by the complainant that sale of spare parts was not mentioned in the indenture of sale/transfer deed as it was the personal assets of the complainant and not to M/s Talreza Stone Works. The accused person therefore granted post dated cheque dated 01.05.2005 amounting to Rs.1,25,000/-over Indian Overseas Bank, Kolkata. The said cheque was delivered to the complainant at Pakur and it was deposited at SBI Bazar Branch, Pakur on 22.07.2005 and the same was sent to Indian Overseas Bank, Kolkata for collection of the cheque amount, but the cheque was bounced. Thereafter on 10.08.2005, notice was sent according to N.I. Act, but in spite of that, the payment was not made and, therefore, the complaint case was filed against the petitioner. 8. Mrs. Thereafter on 10.08.2005, notice was sent according to N.I. Act, but in spite of that, the payment was not made and, therefore, the complaint case was filed against the petitioner. 8. Mrs. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a petition before the learned Court about maintainability of the case at Pakur on the ground of jurisdiction, which was rejected and pursuant to that, the petitioner moved before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.617 of 2011 and vide judgment 12.03.2012, the said petition was dismissed and pursuant to that, the petitioner moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4863/2013, which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 01.07.2013 with observation that the petitioner may raise all the points before the learned S.D.J.M., Pakur as the case was at an advanced stage. She submits that pursuant to that, the petitioner filed a petition before the learned Court raising the objection that the company is not the accused and in view of that the case is arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and, therefore, the prayer was made to dismiss the complaint case in absence of the company and cheque is issued. She also submits that the learned Trial Court has rejected the said petition and the learned Revisional Court has further rejected the revision petition in view of that, the case of interference is made out by this Court. She submits that case of the petitioner is covered in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd. , reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661 . 9. The said argument is adopted by Mrs. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.620 of 2018 and complaint case, criminal revision and the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the learned Revisional Court are different. In this case, Cr.M.P. No.608 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner before this Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.03.2012 and the same was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3029/2013, which was decided on 22.04.2013, wherein, similar observation was made, which has been recorded in the earlier submission of Mrs. Mazumdar. On the above grounds, she submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 10. Mazumdar. On the above grounds, she submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 10. The said argument is being resisted by Mrs. Nitu Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 on the ground that in both the cases, the evidence was already closed and the case has been fixed for final argument and, thereafter, the present petitions have been filed. These aspects of the matter have been considered by the learned Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court and, thereafter, the present petitions have been filed. She further submits that the allegations are not against the company. The allegations are against the accused in individual capacity. She submits that the case relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not attracted. 11. Mr. Srivastava and Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the State submit that at belated stage when the argument is concluded, that point may not be a ground for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding. 12. The Court has gone through the contents of the complaint cases and finds that in paragraph 3, it has been alleged that regarding sale and spare parts, it was not mentioned in the indenture of sale/transfer deed as it was the personal assets of the complainant and not to M/s Talreza Stone Works. Further, if such an allegation was there, it is not a case of interference on the ground that the company is not made an accused in the present cases. The Court finds that for correct appreciation of issuance of cheques, even photo copy of the cheque is not on the record and the Court is not in a position to appreciate that fact, who is the signatory of the said cheque. 13. In both the cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not interfered considering that the evidence was already closed and the case was fixed for final argument and in view of that, liberty was provided to the petitioner to raise all the points before the learned Trial Court. 14. Further, the petitioner chosen to file separate petition, which suggests that even observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not taken care of by the petitioner and he has not argued the matter on merit making all the points, as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in final trial as it was fixed for argument. 14. Further, the petitioner chosen to file separate petition, which suggests that even observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not taken care of by the petitioner and he has not argued the matter on merit making all the points, as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in final trial as it was fixed for argument. The allegations are that in separate capacity, certain transaction was there and in view of that, the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Aneeta Hada(supra)is not attracted. 15. The learned Revisional Court has considered every aspects of the matter and by a well reasoned order, the learned Revisional Court has been pleased to dismiss the revision petitions. It is well settled if injustice is not done, in the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C., second revision is not maintainable. 16. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, no case of interference is made out. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. 17. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, is vacated.